NAPO Slams Gov’t for Revocation of Renamed Universities – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

In a pointed critique of the current administration, Dr. Matthew Opoku Prempeh, popularly known as NAPO, has publicly condemned the government’s decision to revoke the names of three recently established public universities. As a former Minister of Education and the 2024 presidential running mate for the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Dr. Prempeh’s comments carry significant political weight. The controversy centers on an amendment bill that seeks to revert the names of specific institutions while leaving the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) untouched. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the debate, exploring the historical precedents, the specific allegations of discrimination, and the broader implications for Ghana’s educational policy and heritage.

Key Points

Background

To understand the current friction, it is necessary to examine the history of university naming conventions in Ghana. The debate touches on political legacy, regional representation, and the legal frameworks governing tertiary institutions.

The Institutions in Question

The amendment bill focuses on three universities located in the northern and middle belts of Ghana. These institutions were originally named to honor prominent Ghanaian statesmen who contributed significantly to the nation’s development:

• C.K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Sciences: Named after a founding member of the NPP and a key figure in the Northern People’s Party.
• Simon Diedong Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies: Named after a politician from the Upper West Region who served in the First Republic.
• Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development: Named after a legal luminary and business magnate.

The KNUST Precedent

The crux of Dr. Prempeh’s argument lies in the comparison with the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST). Established as the Kumasi College of Technology in 1952, it was renamed KNUST in 1961 by the Convention People’s Party (CPP) government led by Kwame Nkrumah. NAPO highlighted that this renaming was formalized under Act 80, establishing a legal and historical precedent for naming universities after individuals who have made substantial contributions to the nation’s development.

Analysis

Dr. Prempeh’s criticism goes beyond simple administrative changes; it touches on deep-seated issues of political inclusion and historical preservation.

Allegations of Discrimination

NAPO explicitly stated, “It feels like discrimination.” His argument posits that if the government is committed to a standardized approach to university naming, the criteria should apply universally. By retaining the KNUST name—honoring the first President—while stripping names from figures associated with the NPP and other regions, the administration appears to be applying a double standard. This perception is exacerbated by the fact that KNUST was named by a previous government (CPP), yet that decision is being respected while others are overturned.

The “1979” Narrative

In his speech, NAPO claimed, “In Ghana, it seems some people want us to start our history from 1979.” This statement is a rhetorical device suggesting that the current administration is attempting to sanitize or rewrite the country’s history by erasing the legacies of specific political figures, particularly those associated with the pre-1979 era. The implication is that the revocation of these names is an ideological move rather than an administrative one.

Civil Society Silence

Another layer of NAPO’s analysis was his disappointment with civil society organizations (CSOs), academics, and opinion leaders. He questioned their silence on the matter, suggesting that such a significant change to the educational landscape should invite robust public discourse rather than acquiescence.

Practical Advice

For students, educators, and stakeholders in the Ghanaian education sector, this controversy highlights several practical considerations regarding institutional identity and policy stability.

For University Administrators

Institutions facing potential name changes should prioritize:

1. Documenting Heritage: Maintain comprehensive archives of the institution’s history and the significance of its current name to use in advocacy.
2. Stakeholder Engagement: Proactively engage with alumni, local communities, and traditional authorities to build a united front if name changes threaten the institution’s identity.

For Policymakers

To avoid perpetual conflict and “policy somersaults” (a term often used in Ghanaian politics):

1. Establish Clear Criteria: Create a bipartisan, statutory body responsible for naming national assets to depoliticize the process.
2. Grandfather Clauses: Consider the historical value of existing names to avoid the costs and confusion associated with frequent rebranding.

FAQ

Conclusion

The debate over the renaming of public universities in Ghana is more than a bureaucratic adjustment; it is a reflection of the country’s ongoing struggle with political legacy and historical representation. Dr. Matthew Opoku Prempeh’s critique brings to the forefront the need for consistency in governance and the protection of institutional heritage. As the amendment moves through the legislative process, the silence of civil society and the response of the government will determine whether these name changes proceed or if a compromise is reached to preserve the identities of C.K. Tedam, Simon Diedong Dombo, and Appiah-Menka universities.